ALIEN FREEHOLDERS.
On motion by Mr. KAHLO, the bill [H. R. 90] to authorize aliens to hold real estate in Indiana, being read the third time--
Mr. HEFRON regarded the laws of Indiana now as very liberal to holders of real estate. The license and authority embodied in this bill is neither just or right, nor is it conducive to the wellbeing of the State. It has had no discussion in this body, so he knew not what good can be accomplished by its passage. If the United States is not good enough for men to come and live in, it is not good enough for them to hold property in for speculative purposes. It is an attempt to establish a system of tenant farming that we hear so much complaint of. Its object is to allow foreign residents to invest their money in Indiana for the object of gain and take the money derived therefrom away to foreign countries where they reside.
Mr. GRUBBS could not concur with the Senator. If he believed the results referred to would follow he should oppose the bill, but believing great benefit would result under it by immigration to the State of Indiana, he favored the passage of this bill. Our great State is as yet comparatively undeveloped--not only in her mineral, but in her agricultural resources. One-half of the land in Indiana is yet uncultivated. Because he believed the effect of this bill would be to bring these lands in cultivation, he favored the bill. A large portion of lands in this State can not be made productive by individual effort--the swamp lands of the State--and believing this part of the State would be made productive under the provisions of this bill, he desired to see its passage. The objection to the bill proceeds upon the presumption that aliens would hold real estate in Indiana, and to some extent that objection can be maintained; but any man who has the energy and will to come from a foreign land and foreign sale and here invest his money, such a one would probably take the other step to invest himself with the rights of a citizen. No foreign corporation can afford to hold lands in Indiana under tenancy, for the simple reason it will not pay. Then all such would be subject to the laws of Indiana, and could not transfer to our soil the laws of their country. In surrounding States are laws exactly a transcript of this, and no such deleterious results have followed as were suggested by the Senator. On the contrary, the vast tide of emigration has flowed into those States, sweeping by Indiana because here laws are illiberal on this subject. There is organized in Scotland a corporation to encourage emigration to America. One purpose of that corporation is to purchase land in Indiana, divide it in small tracts, build houses on it, and sell to emigrants on time, so they may find a home ready when they come. The effect of that would be to bring under cultivation a great portion of our uncultivated land page: 138[View Page 138] And this is one reason he favored this bill, believing such a class of citizens would be of great benefit to the State.
Mr. HEFRON did not believe anybody supposes these corporations will invest money in the swamps and wet lands of the State. The State has already been held back because thousands of acres of these lands are held by men who do not improve them. It is the true policy not to allow lands to be bought up in large quantities. Experience demonstrates that in their own country these foreigners have wrung from their fellowcountrymen the last farthing, and it is not to be supposed they will be liberal toward those they have oppressed by sending them to homes in this country. The Eastern States, where these foreigners first operated, none of them have such a law as this pill proposes, but require owners to be residents. The entire domain of Scotland is owned by some 1,200 men, who, not contented with owning Scotland, desire now to own large tracts of land in Indiana. The principle of this ill is wrong, and our statute since 1861 is right. Let us enjoy the benefits accruing from the development of our own resources.
Mr. SPANN characterized one argument by the Senator from Daviess (Mr. Hefron) as trying to raise a bugaboo--the argument, per se, that it is not the citizen that becomes dangerous, but the land becomes dangerous because a non-resident ownes it. The Senator forgets that it is becaus England makes land laws for Ireland that the face of the poor is ground. He favored the bill, because there is not a State in this Northwestern country but has this identical law on their statute books, and in this fact lies the reason why emigration sweeps past and through Indiana.
Mr. MORRIS should vote against the bill because the principle is wrong. It is contrary to the genius of our institutions to encourage the relations of landlord and tenant. He believed these foreign corporations desired to obtain large bodies of land and rent it out in small parcels to tenants. There are not steamships enough to transport all the foreigners who desire to come here to live, and he favored giving such a class of immigrants all the inducements possible, but opposed anything looking to the encouragement of rich foreigners and foreign Companies buyirg up large parcels of land.
Mr. GARRIGUS would like Senators opposing this bill to point out why it is worse for foreigners than for our own citizens to buy up large bodies of land. They say they would like to have foreigners come here, but want to legislate against them. There is no reason why Indiana should not be as liberal to them as are other States.
Mr. MENZIES knew of one tract of 30,000 acres owned at one time by one Scotchman [Robert Dale Owen] which is now parceled out to about 150 owners. He thought time would remedy the evils feared from this bill.
Mr. BROWN did not think it right or wise to encourage persons with fortunes living on foreign soil, to invest in large tracts of lands in Indiana. Older States are too wise to enact such laws. Suppose a family in Scotland having millions seeking investment should desire to buy up lands in this State, is it wise to encourage such investment when it is proable the purchase would lie unproductive possibly for centuries? Instead of encouraging a unification, it encourages the opposite. This bill asks no duty or obligation from them--leaving it to the discretion of the purchasers as to what class of people they will send, or whether they will let the land lie idle for years and years. And a large body settling in one place might bring about complications international, that might be difficult to avert, by their applying to their mother country to protect their property here, and in other ways.
Mr. LANGDON--If correctly informed, should vote against the bill. Being a bill of great importance, he moved it to be passed over for the present and made the special order for 10 o'clock to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to.
